I thought they were pretty generous in not including any Cubs pitchers

cheezheadsoxfan

03-02-2007, 08:48 AM

Funny article. Lots of flubbies on the list.:D:

WhiteSox5187

03-02-2007, 09:40 AM

He's absolutely right, the Cubs spent the most money this year obviously, and I look at their roster and I think "Man, they're mediocre at BEST!"

crazyozzie02

03-02-2007, 10:16 AM

for once an article that doesnt shine a bad light on us from ESPN

Palehose Pete

03-02-2007, 10:55 AM

Why this signing may work out: Fantasy stats are now included in real standings!

I laughed out loud when I read this about the Soriano signing!

Carp

03-02-2007, 11:25 AM

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

wsoxfan111

03-02-2007, 11:42 AM

The Cubs spent 5.5 mil on their backup catcher?

Palehose Pete

03-02-2007, 11:52 AM

The Cubs spent 5.5 mil on their backup catcher?

It's true. All that money just to be a backup. I'm going to kill my high school guidance counselor for not telling me about this job...

minutia

03-02-2007, 11:59 AM

I laughed out loud when I read this about the Soriano signing!
I did too. That is a brilliant burn.

ondafarm

03-02-2007, 12:18 PM

Wow, nothing about the White Sox. Apart from the reference just under the headline that is.

caulfield12

03-02-2007, 12:38 PM

The Cubs spent 5.5 mil on their backup catcher?

Goodbye Michigan.

That Iowa loss killed them. Michigan State and Illinois are in for sure, and Michigan's resume is weaker than that of Purdue.

If they beat OSU, they have an outside shot, if they win at LEAST two games in the BTT and knock off either Indiana, MSU, OSU or Wisconsin.

MUsoxfan

03-02-2007, 12:46 PM

Goodbye Michigan.

That Iowa loss killed them. Michigan State and Illinois are in for sure, and Michigan's resume is weaker than that of Purdue.

If they beat OSU, they have an outside shot, if they win at LEAST two games in the BTT and knock off either Indiana, MSU, OSU or Wisconsin.

:?:

You're a forum off:redneck

tick53

03-02-2007, 12:57 PM

Again I reiterate. The Chicago White Sox have proven that you don't need to spend a fortune to win a World Series. Good article too.

DSpivack

03-02-2007, 01:32 PM

Again I reiterate. The Chicago White Sox have proven that you don't need to spend a fortune to win a World Series. Good article too.

I would say the 2003 Marlins prove this better than any other. I don't think last year's Cardinals had a very big payroll, either.

spiffie

03-02-2007, 02:35 PM

I would say the 2003 Marlins prove this better than any other. I don't think last year's Cardinals had a very big payroll, either.
2006 Cardinals: 11th out of 30
2005 White Sox: 13th out of 30
2004 Red Sox: 2nd out of 30
2003 Marlins: 25th out of 30
2002 Angels: 15th out of 30
2001 D-Backs: 8th out of 30
2000 Yankees: 1st out of 30
1999 Yankees: 1st out of 30
1998 Yankees: 2nd out of 30
1997 Marlins: 7th out of 30
1996 Yankees: 1st out of 30
1995 Braves: 3rd out of 30

The interesting thing is even though the Yankees were 1st in payroll 3 times, they never were more than a couple million above the next highest payroll team. It looks like the lesson is that you generally need to be in the top third to top half of league payroll to have a realistic chance of winning the World Series. Only once has a team pulled it off outside of the top half of payroll, and that was pretty much only due to running into the most inept franchise in sports history in the NLCS.

FarWestChicago

03-03-2007, 09:36 AM

:?:

You're a forum off:redneckI'm not complaining. It's nice to see him not make a totally Flubsessed post. :D:

That Iowa loss killed them. Michigan State and Illinois are in for sure, and Michigan's resume is weaker than that of Purdue.

If they beat OSU, they have an outside shot, if they win at LEAST two games in the BTT and knock off either Indiana, MSU, OSU or Wisconsin.

:?:

You're a forum off:redneck
(in response to "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"):
Forget it, he's on a roll.

DumpJerry

03-04-2007, 01:06 PM

Henry Blanco c
2 years/$5.25M (2007-08), plus $3M 2009 option

Toby Hall c
2 years/$3.65M (2007-08), plus $2.25M 2009 club option

:rolleyes:
Hey Blue Fan: are you trying to show us that not only baseball, but also math skills are shortcomings in the Cub fan knowledge base?

IndianWhiteSox

03-04-2007, 01:11 PM

Henry Blanco c
2 years/$5.25M (2007-08), plus $3M 2009 option

Toby Hall c
2 years/$3.65M (2007-08), plus $2.25M 2009 club option

:rolleyes:

:dtroll:

WizardsofOzzie

03-04-2007, 02:19 PM

Henry Blanco c
2 years/$5.25M (2007-08), plus $3M 2009 option

Toby Hall c
2 years/$3.65M (2007-08), plus $2.25M 2009 club option

:rolleyes:

We still aren't rid of you Cubbie troll? You do realize thats a 1.5 million dollar difference right? I look forward to your insight after todays ST game.
:dumbass:

Hey Blue Fan: are you trying to show us that not only baseball, but also math skills are shortcomings in the Cub fan knowledge base?
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f362/rhombus27/kelso_burn.gif

Jose.Contreras

03-04-2007, 08:30 PM

Henry Blanco c
2 years/$5.25M (2007-08), plus $3M 2009 option

Toby Hall c
2 years/$3.65M (2007-08), plus $2.25M 2009 club option

:rolleyes:

So your post proves that Cubs paid a good amount more for their backup cather. I'd also like to point out that Toby Hall is actually a better baseball player than Henry Blanco. So in all, the Cubs paid more money for a worse player.

Risk

03-04-2007, 08:39 PM

So your post proves that Cubs paid a good amount more for their backup cather. I'd also like to point out that Toby Hall is actually a better baseball player than Henry Blanco. So in all, the Cubs paid more money for a worse player.

Don't let that poster's inherent lack of knowledge bother you--he also ragged on the Sox for selling the naming rates to U.S. Cellular, all while failing to point out that his beloved, dilapidated, piss-soaked Shrine also has a corporate name.

But at least they didn't sell out, right Cubbie fan.:rolleyes:

Risk

WizardsofOzzie

03-04-2007, 09:43 PM

Don't let that poster's inherent lack of knowledge bother you--he also ragged on the Sox for selling the naming rates to U.S. Cellular, all while failing to point out that his beloved, dilapidated, piss-soaked Shrine also has a corporate name.

But at least they didn't sell out, right Cubbie fan.:rolleyes:

Risk

You apparently don't realize that Wrigley Field, the Bud Light bleachers, and the Under Armour walls are way more historic than that hole the Sox whored out to U.S. Cellular, right Mshake10? :rolleyes: